 |
PARABLES |
|
|
Probably more has been written and interpreted about parables than any other subject in the New Testament. There seems to be no end to the books on the study of the parables. Nearly all contain different views, opinions, interpretations or applications of the parables. While many authors will agree on certain points in their interpretations, they will more often be in contradiction with one another. Because of the existing contradictorily nature of the general study of the parables, a person can easily become lost and confused. Thus the student of the parables is usually left with the option of arbitrarily choosing the author, or interpretation, which appeals to him the most, and accepting that view.
This is not the way to study or rightly divide the Word of Truth. By applying arbitrary meanings, a person is simply assigning a meaning to the scriptures that conforms to his desire to have Scripture say what they think they should say. Many use the parables to support their preconceived ideas and theology. Often parables are used as a “proof text” when no other text will do. If we are to know and understand the truth then we must allow the truth to teach us. All heresy comes from the reading into the Word (forcing it) rather than learning from the Word. If we are going to understand the parables then a valid model of interpretation must be determined and applied. This is the goal of this study.
The Model of Interpretation
Three Figures of Speech - The Parable, The Fable, and The Allegory
The Parable
A parable is an extended figure of speech. The word itself comes from two words, "to cast" and "alongside." It is a story used to teach. It is one truth cast alongside another truth to illustrate or teach something about that second truth. A. T. Roberson in his "Word Pictures"[1] wrote, “The word parable (to place alongside for measurement or comparison like a yardstick) is an objective illustration for spiritual or moral truth.” The parable is a figure of speech used to teach or instruct, not to confuse, mislead or to be so hidden that it cannot be understood. It is true that those who did not have ears to hear could not understand the parables. This lack of hearing was the lack of faith, believing, receiving and accepting the truth. With just a few exceptions, the parables were not meant for teaching the scoffers, or those rejecting the Kingdom message, or adversaries of Christ, but for the ones of faith. To them the parables were clearly meant to teach and to be understood.
Parables can be understood and are meant to be understood!
The Fable verses The Parable
Parables are not fables. They differ in this sense; fables put things as they are not in nature; such as trees walking, or as trees anointing the bramble to be a king over them (Judges 9:8-15). Parables may not be actual fact, but they are always true to life. They are stories of life, such as when we read of the story of the rich man and Lazarus and the account of hell, hades. Some try to assert that that this story of hades is not true because it is a parable and therefore not a factual, actual account. But they do not understand that parables are exactly that, true to life or reality. Christ drew His parables from common or familiar objects, places, or events.
The Allegory
With the exception of a few rare authors, all resort to the practice of allegorizing the parables. What does that mean? An allegory is also a figure of speech where one thing stands in place of another, or represents another. Such as found in John 15:1-10, where The true vine is Christ, the vinedresser is The Father, and the branches are disciples. When definite allegories are used they are either explained or their meaning (what they represent) is manifestly understood by their context. If allegories are not explained or easily understood then how can we know with certainty for what they represent, or stand in place of? Consider this point, when a person uses an allegory, it is only in his mind as to what he means by it. Unless that person explains it or gives evidence as to what the meaning is then we can only guess what is represented.
In the early days of the civil war, the comment was made about the rebel General Jackson when in the first battle of Bull Run he stood like a stonewall, hence he became known as Stonewall Jackson. But what was the meaning of this allegory? Some say it meant that he stood his ground against the foe without flinching. But the original comment was made when Jackson refused to advance and attack the Union forces and he stood as a stonewall. There is quite a difference in the two applications of the meaning of that original allegory. If Jesus used unexplained allegories in His parables how can we know with any certainty what was in His mind, what He meant by them? We cannot know unless we receive divine revelation.
So, is the use of allegorizing the components of the parables a valid way to interpret parables? Or should only the literal meaning be applied? If we resort to allegorizing, then we are open to all kinds of problems of explanation. Countless times allegorizations eventually end in contradicting the cardinal truths of the Bible. Also, they will often be contradictory in the context of the same parable. Those who realize this problem resort to inconsistencies. That is, they say the allegory is not consistent everywhere or cannot be applied literally in all points. They imply that parable stories themselves are inconsistent. For example, a popular interpretation of the parable of the leaven hid in three measures of meal until it all becomes leavened, is that the meal represents the Kingdom of God and leaven is evil. If these two allegories are correct then the conclusion is that the Kingdom of God will eventually be overtaken and become thoroughly corrupt with evil. This contradicts Biblical truth. Rather than admit that the allegories are wrong, they either ignore the conclusion or they make the meaning inconsistent and resort to “explaining way” the problem. Here is a quote by a very well known and respected author[2] in his interpretation of the Parable of the Ten Virgins, “And here we must remind ourselves of the general cannon (law), that, in the interpretation of a Parable, details must not be too closely pressed.” There is no such law, except in the minds of those who insist in the use of allegorizing.
The best valid model of interpretation of the parables is not to allegorize any of the elements of their stories. When the prodigal son is mentioned then he just that, and only that - a wasteful son. He represents no one, he stands in place for no others, his actions are his own, his character has no double meaning, and he is not a “type” signifying an example of any group.
Once this practice of allegorizing is cast aside it will become amazing simple to understand the truths of the parables. They really are very simple, without any hidden, secret code or meaning.
The Audience
This is a point that is often lightly treated or misapplied. Great consideration must be given to those who heard these parables when they were first spoken. Why? Because it was for their learning that they were given. (Nearly every parable was a response to a specific situation encountered by Christ.) This is contrary to the popular view that what Jesus said was for us, our understanding, and not for them, or their edification. As it was defined, parables are meant to teach! They were intended to bring men to the understanding of truths concerning the Kingdom of God. The original audience, hearers, of the parables had a limited understanding of many things, which are well known by us who have the completed New Testament Word. We must ask exactly how much knowledge would they have had of the Church, the New Covenant, the new Priesthood, the new form of worship and new system of commandments and ordinances? They knew of the Temple, and the Synagogue but these are very different from what Jesus was building. Would they have understood things which they had no knowledge of? The preferred approach would be to assume that Christ spoke to them on their level and not beyond them. When an interpretation is assigned, the question needs to be asked, would they have understood this meaning? If they almost certainly did not, then the interpretation is probably not valid. Remember, Christ was teaching them and we now learn from their lessons. So we must put ourselves in their position, at their level of understanding, knowledge and circumstances. This is a consistent principle of hermeneutics (the study of biblical interpretation.)
Our valid model of interpretation should include the two questions: what did they know and what didn’t they know. The best assumption is that Christ was revealing (teaching) to them truths of the Kingdom of God that they could understand and needed to understand.
Some of the Features of Parables
Within each parablel, there is usually a point of exaggeration. It may not be readily apparent to us unless we are familiar with the customs or culture of the people. As an example consider the growth of the mustard seed into a tree. Mustard is an herb and would have grown into a bush, not a tree. Also the woman with three measures of meal, that amount of batter would have made enough bread to feed one hundred people, whereas it was the custom for the wife or maidservant to only make the required amount of bread that would have been eaten by the household for that day. These are just two, there are many more. Why did Jesus include these exaggerations? They were used because they would have immediately grabbed the attention and interest of those people. It drew their minds to what He was saying. The exaggerations in no way made the story unrealistic.
While many truths are expressed in the parables, the prudent approach is to look for that primary truth being taught. If there is more than one emphasized truth present in the lesson it should be apparent. In other words, we should not make too much out of a parable. This could result in confusion and obscuring the whole point Jesus is making. The key is to keep it simple. If an interpretation is complicated it is most likely too involved. There will be one central key truth being taught, or focused on, in every parable. If there are other points of truths they are usually in consequence and secondary to the central lesson. They are not meant to detract, but they augment the subject truth. Some have called these and other non-critical elements of the parables "tapestry," use to adorn and enrich the story. These make the parable all the more memorable.
Language
The meaning and usage of words have to be understood. Unfortunately, very few of us are fluent in Greek. When we study our English Bibles we are studying a translation. It is necessary that we don’t totally rely on the translators, but to search the language and prove or achieve a greater understanding of what the words are. Simple definitions are where the student begins his study. Just as in any language, many words have more than one meaning or shades of meanings. The grammar determines the usage of the words. Grammar consists of the context and syntax, which are the relations of the words to the subject and to each other. When good grammatical rules are followed, we are letting the words speak to us rather than limiting them or our putting our own meaning to them.
As a summary of the rules we have the following:
1) Take the words, elements, and characters literal. Do not allegorize!
2) Understand the parable in the same way that the original hearers would have.
3) Have a good knowledge of the customs of the people, the region and country.
4) Research the language; make sure you know grammatically what is being said grammatically and the meaning and application of the words.
5) Question, test and prove all interpretations; they must harmonize with the entire word of God, and they must make sense. Other scripture will support the correct meaning of the parables.
6) Beware of the practices of using parables as “proof text” for points of theology and practices, which are otherwise obscure in scripture.
7) Be consistent. Truth is consistent. If an assertion is made on a meaning then that meaning must hold consistent in all places.
8) Do not accept any contradictions within the parable itself or against the unity of the Word of God in its entirety.
(Unless otherwise noted all scripture references are from the King James edition.)
[1] A. T. Roberson Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. 1, Page 101. Broadman Press, Nashville, Tennessee, First Pub. 1903 -33.
[2] Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus The Messiah, Part 2, Page 455. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, Michigan, Sept. 1973.
|
|
Next: Parable of The Sower |
This page last updated September 14, 2004 at 11:17am
|
|
